Will Puma Survive?
 

Lots of rumours out there, anyone in the know?

The government's got no money and its not currently deployed on Operations, what would your guess be ?

Indeed. If we think the cuts have finished yet, we're dreaming. It might be more a case of when than if. But you could probably say that for all sorts of things at the moment.

However, to answer your question, no, I'm not in the know.

Courtney

I see the blinkered thinking of HMG is rubbing off on those in 'town' as well. Nice to see we're structuring ourselves with a well-balanced force for the future, or b)?
The country isn't totally broke, plenty out there are. Brainwashing the population to believe it is is a very convenient way to get people to roll over and accept any decision made by our glorious leaders.
I feel deep sympathy for the many aircrew and support staff who will be without a job in the very near future in an ever more competetive job market.
Obviously it's still only a rumour though.:oh:

Well if Puma gets axed and Merlin goes to the Navy, the RAF will have a totally unbalanced capability which won't be FCOC compliant. Given that the doctrine wallahs are predicting a future of complex interventions in littoral / urban environments, that is going to need at least some relatively small, flexible RW assets if the RAF wants to operate SH in that context.

As we found all too often in the early days of HERRICK, trying to get CH-47 into small compounds doesn't always work, and you either end up a) trashing the cab b) trashing the compound or c) doing an insert to an offset HLS and having to fight your way in and out - which is just about fine in a relatively open area, but do you really want to do that in an urban environment?

Unfortunately, much of this seems to have been overlooked and hasn't been helped by the Chinook mafia dominating the RAF's RW decision making and planning processes. So now, given that we are skint and that Puma isn't on ops, regardless of the capability requirement for a reasonably small and flexible platform capable of operating in all environments, anything we might say will just be seen as a fighting a rear-guard action by the Army and RN who will quite happily see Puma go.

I think it's always been a bit like that, Llama. Perhaps (partly) because the guys in town see the severity of the cuts "close-up" and have to act on them. I agree with you about aircrew and support staff who will be without a job in the very near future.

I think it's also going to be very difficult for those still serving who find themselves deployed more and more frequently and trying to do more with less. Ops aren't over yet and there will always be more to come. Trick is, the politicians need to decide what they want to do in the world and then equip and man (sorry, person) the armed forces accordingly. They cannot keep cutting and expecting to keep being big actors on the world stage.

Courtney

Sorry, but it still won't work on a ship!

Don't get me wrong but I have the ultimate respect for gold old 'Percy' but I'm afraid the glory days of AMF heroically galavanting across land-locked Europe to only worry about keeping the 'Reds' in check are long gone.

I've been put onto a ship by one. Seemed to work OK then!

P.S. Before you say anything, yes I know!

dc1968,

I really don't have any personal loyalty to the Puma - I do not, never have and never will fly it, so my comments were not driven out of any sense of loyalty to the platform. I was merely arguing that whilst the CH-47 is a good ac, having nothing but CH-47 will leave the RAF's rotary fleet unbalanced, potentially putting the RAF at a disadvantage if the future operating environment does indeed develop in the way Defence seems to think it will.

Plus, if you can't get a Puma on a ship, you're going to have even more problems with a Merlin!

It's not a matter of size for the ship. Your comments regarding size with respect to in-theatre requirements are spot on though :ok:

llamaman,

As to how broke the government is, try looking at this...

UK National Debt | Economics Blog


We may not be as "broke" as some other countries, but we are still broke, and still borrowing £140Bn odd each year to make ends meet (despite the "massive cuts" Labour keep referring to), so continually increasing the size of the overall national debt. Indeed, when the coalition talked about getting rid of the deficit by 2015 (which they probably won't now be able to do), as opposed to Labour which planned to half it, they were talking about the ANNUAL deficit, not the overall one.

If we don't put our own house in order, and end up going cap in hand to the IMF, then any cuts undertaken nationally will be as nothing to any imposed on us externally - external ones will be far more draconian.

As a country we are living beyond our means, and it cannot continue indefinitely.

Cuts in government spending are necessary, where they are made, welfare, defence, education, NHS, etc are decided by the people that our supposed democratic system placed in power.

Biggus
 

Your words are music to the ears of the Chinese. The Chinese government, in 1998, asked their military leaders as to how they could best defeat the West. Their Generals said that the West should first be defeated economically; our glorious leaders have, of course, fallen headlong into that trap.
In my view they now have the money, the military hardware, the manpower and the will to, well......do what they like:eek:

Anyway, back to the thread: Maybe the Puma is being mothballed because 1. it is French, and 2. it is made of plastic. :E

Incoming, Tin hat on, straps tightened;)

The RAF and helicopters
 

But why does the RAF need a balanced capability? Surely as long as JHC or Defence has a balanced capability then that ought to suffice?

Nick

Biggus,

Thanks for the lecture in Thatcherite economics. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a balanced Armed Forces (across the board) that is properly equipped to adequately defend UK interests and support a realistic foreign policy. You can't save huge sums of cash that quickly if you have a Bullish administration who consider themselves a world player and pander to the beck and call of our American friends.

I'm not arguing that Puma is necessarily the best solution but the Chinook is not the answer to everything. Unless you're a Chinook driver.

So if the Puma doesn't survive PR12, and the Merlin goes to the RN, why not give the CH47 to the Army? No requirement for JHC as the main users have their own assets and can utilise them as they see fit.

Save a fortune....... Simples!

Nick - because JHC is effectively an administrative arrangement designed to reduce the costs by minimising duplication and procedures. However, the single services still retain Full Command of their assets and personnel. So whilst JHC may operate the ac, they are still the RAF's.

Mel

Understood, but that doesn't quite answer why the RAF needs a balanced (whatever that means) SH force.

Nick

tramps

Thread drift, I know, and perhaps irrelevant to the 'here and now', but I think China may have their own problems just around the corner - clicky.

But will JHC have a balanced capability if there is nothing in size between Wildcat and Merlin?

Just came across this...doesn't make happy reading for Puma folks... Ministry of Defence | About Defence | People | Speeches | Minister for International Security Strategy Speeches | 2011/10/19 - Heli-Power Conference & Exhibition

Because like it or not, the RAF is still the primary operator of SH in Defence. The CHF have a very good, albeit relatively small SH capability to support 3 Cdo, but by and large, SH is still an RAF function. Just as AH and LUH is still an Army function.

And by balanced I mean that to guarantee operational flexibility, you might want something other than a 100ft x 60ft ac weighing in at smidge over 10 tons. There are times when size really does matter - regardless of what CinC Home Command tells you - and there are times when small really is better. But if all you have is a CH-47, you could well be operationally limited which you wouldn't necessarily be with a balanced force of large and small SH.

TorqueOfTheDevil

Good spot.

Quote from Minister for International Security Strategy:

'And the SDSR clearly laid out plans for a helicopter fleet based on four core platforms from 2025 -Apache, Merlin, Wildcat, and Chinook'.

Did it, really? Lets hope there's never any requirement for a platform that can carry a useful number of troops a decent range into tighter LS's (urban, jungle etc).

Fixed wing will become a RAF activity and rotary in it's entirety will be RN & AAC. The RAF comprehensively out foxed the RN in the initial force reduction, i do not think that will happen again and the RN & AAC will take no prisoners in my opinion as it's survival of the fittest.

For what it's worth, Sec of State referred to the Puma upgrade in his evidence to the Select Committee last Wednesday:

(from the uncorrected evidence).

It reads to me as though any decision not to continue hasn't reached SofS yet and that he might be a tad surprised to discover the upgrade isn't going ahead.

By the by, Howarth's observations were about 2025 - Flight and various other open sources have Puma 2 going out of service in 2024/25, so the fact that he failed to mention it isn't necessarily indicative of cancellation (and aren't there suggestions that Puma 2 has some influential supporters amongst those in charge of chaps resident in the Credenhill and Poole areas?) - Puma's meant to be replaced by a future medium helicopter capability, which translates as 'we'll all be retired, out of office or doddering about in the Lords by the time that comes to fruition, so someone else can worry about the specifics and how to bodge the project when we get closer to the date if there's any cash'.

"Puma's meant to be replaced by a future medium helicopter capability", which we can't afford, so maybe running it on a while is another option after all.

Is it just me or is the RAF and the Navy taking the full brunt of money cost saving cuts. It appears nobody else seems to be getting hit as hard as us with relation to public sector workers. I know its easier to take from us as we cannot go on strike but there is only so much pruning you can to to a tree stump. Last October we dealt a bitter blow, but after time we dealt with it but its been blow after blow to the forces and its no bloody wonder people are leaving in droves now. Todays decision on the Olympics is another slap in the face as I know not one person supports the most ridiculous money saving decision ever dressed up as " the troops would be privelaged to take part in such an event" what utter lies to the public. I for sure am not going to be living in a tent for 2 weeks in London, having to pay for my own accomodation and food only to claim it back when the RAF and JPA can be arsed to give it back. Im not going to be subject to abuse and slander from the general public.Id rather spend 4 months in Kandahar than let the government get another get out of free jail card. :mad:

As for Puma , I hope not but rumour has been about for ages its only a matter of time but maybe just maybe the olympics has given her some more time. Who knows :ugh:

Melchett

I'm sorry, but if CHF and the RAF SH community are both part of JHC, why should it matter who is operating the Merlins? I don't think you've answered Nicholas Howard's question beyond stating that the RAF need to operate both types to remain 'balanced', but the operator is irrelevant as long as the types remain in service with JHC, which is the organisation that needs to remain 'balanced'.

This is, of course, a separate argument to whether or not Merlin fulfils the 'medium' SH requirement currently occupied by SK4 and Puma. From a size perspective, Merlin isn't that different from SK, because the Merlin was designed to operate from the same spots at sea, so the footprint is very similar. Merlin length (rotors running) 22.8m, rotor diameter 18.6m, SK length (rr) 22.15m, rotor diameter 18.9m.

The downwash is a different issue!

Snafu,

I didn't say the CHF operating Merlin was an issue. What I did say was that in RW terms, the RAF is in danger of becoming operationally ineffective if all it had was CH-47 and nothing smaller to offer the flexibility required to operate in an complex urban scenario.

All I can think is that Nicholas, and possibly yourself, are alluding to RW capability being a Defence capability rather than a single service capability. Well on paper, maybe it is, but that argument would only work if we were a single Defence Force rather than the single services that we are. To take your argument to its fullest extent would be akin to saying that the Infantry belong to Defence not the Army. In practice, JHC is far from being Joint and has single service rivalries running right the way through it (apart from at the operator level, when the guys just crack on) which means that the RAF still very much fight their own corner within JHC as do the Army and the RN / RM and assets are still viewed very much as being RAF or Army or RN/RM. Be under no illusion, the loss of Puma would have broader political implications for the RAF outside of pure capability. The day the RAF were unable to provide the required SH support because we lack a balanced capability is the day the Army then make a bid to take over RW in total, arguing that the RAF cannot provide the effect required.

So if Puma does end up getting the axe, at a stroke, not only have we reduced our overall RW flexibility & capability in the manner already described (Wildcat will never be an effective Puma replacement), but the RAF could also end up facing more base reductions and the loss of more personnel associated with those defunct capabiltiies as the bean counters start to question the need for retaining Benson, the SHF construct and associated appointments and broader RAF manning liabilities. And in the current febrile atmosphere of SDSR and PRs, any chance for any of the services to get one over their sister services is being taken with both hands.

Plus, I just happen to believe that the SH role is still an RAF role. That is my opinion, many would question it, but in terms of operational experience over the years, numbers of aircraft and crews and associated personnel and infrastructure, the RAF has and continues to provide the lion's share of the capability. And as I don't see any other SH sqns outside of the RAF and the CHF's much smaller capability, in that respect, I don't see how I am wrong in describing SH as a primarily RAF capability.

To paraphrase Melchett....

It's because the RAF is important and we want the shiny things. :)

Alfred

Thank you, much clearer now!

Nick

Melchett

Errrr....last time I checked, we're all part of Defence, irrespective of which colour uniform we wear. I think the RM and RAF Regt might have something to say about their role as infanteers as well!

Inter-service rivalries about who owns what are one of the root causes of the bad behaviour between senior elements of each Service, because they've lost sight of the fact that we're all supposed to be working towards the single aim of providing the military contribution to Defence. The colour of your cloth should be irrelevant in comparison to whether or not you can provide the capability asked of you in the land, air or maritime evironments. I agree that the seams between those environments are the most complex areas for the high-priced help to decide who is going to get the funding to do what, but in our cash-strapped circumstances there's not much scope for unneccessary duplication.

I also disagree with you that JHC isn't joint, it looks pretty joint to me! There are always going to be single service tensions, but show me a 'joint' organisation where there aren't! The tensions are more evident back at home, where people are polarised by separate basing, but on ops it's about as joint as any organisation I've ever seen and is routinely producing the goods for the customers day in, day out. Without realising it, most of JHC are probably among the most 'joint' of all of the Armed Forces, because working alongside each of the other two Services is second nature. I would argue that the only groups that are more joint are within certain specialist organisations, where the colour of your original uniform is almost irrelevant to your role and position within whichever of those organisations you're working.

Getting back to the original thread, Puma's upgrade might still be on the cards at the moment, but I'm not sure I'd hold my breath about any project requiring a financial commitment right now, because there's still a bit of a hole in the finances that has to be closed somehow. I think you're probably relatively safe if your project or equipment is part of the future structure of the Forces beyond 2025, but if you're not.....!

It's done better than expected.....

I remember the Wessex pilots saying that they thought it would last no more than 5 yrs. That was in 1970!

Yawn...... The Puma can operate from ships, the French have done it for years. We chose not to do it, but that could change if they were prepared to do the trials. Not sure where they have stashed the blade folding kits though. Probably in Lord Lucans new house. Never a funnier sight than a 33 Sqn Crewman Leader winching down to HMS Intrepid with his monkey harness still attached. I nearly fell off the side!

Snafu,

I do agree that many have lost sight of the bigger picture and single service rivalries do us no favours - especially when the Treasury is the real enemy. But having now done 2 tours in JHC in 5years, I have a pretty good take on just how joint JHC really is. That aside, agreed - lets get back to the original thread rather than going down the semantics rabbit hole of single or joint service.

I still think we need something Puma-sized to offer maximum operational flexibility in the future operating environment.

If we still need a small(ish) cab (which we probably do), given that the Pumas were primarily early 70's build and a large chunk of the HC4 fleet are mid to late 80s build (albeit with high-time frames), why was Puma put forward for a SLEP instead of the HC4? That would have left the RAF with a straight choice between Merlin / Puma.

Not that I think CHF don't need a new cab (they do), I'm just somewhat surprised that the potential consequences weren't seen beforehand.

Apparently been agreed that we are getting 60 x Ghost Hawks to be operated by the RAF instead of Puma 2. That'll be nice.

The only thing the Puma operators can do that Chinook operators can't is handbagging.







:E

....and find the correct target first time!

MGD

For a LONG time all the dross graduating out of Shawbury were posted to the Wokka. It's a shame that some of them were promoted a long way and ended up running (and now selling-out) the SH force.

Puma can go down a carrier lift - if fitted with folding rotors
AND it can be marinised properly, though I'm sure the RAF ones will never be